Rudd backs PM on AWU conduct

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/rudd-backs-pm-on-awu-conduct/story-fn59niix-1226512832032

That headline was typical of the coverage of Kevin Rudd's comments  to Neil Mitchell on 3AW 2 days ago.

I was sent Rudd's comments within 10 minutes of him making them - and I must admit it didn't strike me as backing the PM on her AWU conduct at all.  It struck me as Rudd saying nothing and I| was surprised it got such coverage.   It's fascinating that different people looking at the same thing can see it so differently.

For the record, here's what Rudd said,

``I had a lot of experience of it some years ago, when the opposition asked a series of questions about whether I was the corrupt recipient of benefits concerning a ute, for goodness sake, in terms of whether I have brought in a national program in the global financial crisis ... to benefit a particular individual,'' he said.

``Did I like all of that? No. Was it complete and absolute nonsense? Yes. Was it proven to be utterly fraudulent? Yep.

``So oppositions will ask anything. I believe the Prime Minister has responded effectively to these questions so far.''

``I believe the Prime Minister's account of this period goes directly to the question which have been asked. I believe she has provided a strong set of statements in the press conference that she gave some weeks ago on this subject, and responded directly to the questions which were put to her.''

3 times he used the phrase "to the questions put to her" or "the questions so far'.  He really is the master of saying something that sounds supportive.

I suspect that Rudd is aware that there are a lot more questions to be put than just those at the Press Conference the PM held on border protection/the AWU on 23 August this year.

He said she gave a strong set of statements at the press conference.   She responded directly to the questions. Her account "goes directly to the questions that have been asked".   Quite.

But is she in strife Kevin?   Does it look like the allegations are serious.   Has she misled the parliament?   What of the apparently backdated Power of Attorney and the application and letter to the WA Corporate Affairs Department.

I think it might be a bit of a stretch to suggest that Rudd entirely "backs the Prime Minister on her AWU conduct."  A very big stretch.